The Seven-fold Spirit of God

I think of a word as a way to communicate. It would be useful to know
how that relates to the use of Word in Exodus 9:20 and John 1:14. Would
you please help me with this?

Thank you.

May the blessings of the second person of the Trinity be upon you,

Response #1:

That sounds fine. The Hebrew word at Exodus 9:20 is the most common
Hebrew word for "word", dabhar (דבר), while the Greek word for
"word" at John 1:14 is the most common Greek word for "word", logos
(λόγος). Either can also be translated as "message", so that in
theological terms they are not merely means, but the message, and the
content of the message – which is far more than "text" since Jesus is
the Message and the Messenger in One of God's Plan of salvation. Here is
a snippet of what will be forthcoming next year in BB 4B Soteriology on
this:

In short, the Plan of God is
salvation: its
(strategic) declaration (Logos – Plan of the Father), its
(operational) completion (Logos – Person and Work of the
Son), and its (tactical) fulfillment in the lives of individual
believers (Logos – Message of Good News or Gospel
mediated by the Holy Spirit). Thus, the Plan of God is the
Logos, Jesus Christ, the One who perfectly represents the
thinking and the planning of the Father (1Cor.2:16), the One has
perfectly carried out the plan (Heb.1:3), and the One who is the
message or Logos which must be believed in order to be saved
when the Holy Spirit makes this truth of the gospel
understandable to the person in question (Jn.3:18-19). As the
Word of God, therefore, Jesus Christ has been given a place of
honor in the plan even above the hallowed Name of God Himself,
for it is only by responding to Jesus Christ that the Father is
truly honored and His plan fulfilled for His creatures who
possess free will.

I will bow myself in worship toward your holy temple,
and I will give thanks to your holy Name on account of
your mercy, and on account of your truth, for You
have magnified Your Word above Your entire Name.
Psalm 138:2

Please be so kind as to consider the following. In Zech. 3:9 we
prophetically read with respect to the '7 Eyes' that they were/are upon
the 'stone' which could be a reference to the Stone Christ and the 7
Eyed Church.

Zech. 3:9: For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon
one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving
thereof, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that
land in one day.

Matthew 16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.

Meanwhile, as suggested before in Matt. 6:22 we read that the '.
. .light
of the body is the eye'. Which however in its greek neuter form would be
better translated as '. . .light to the body is the eye'. It should be noted
here that the eye in literal terms is NOT the light itself but rather
the mechanical vehicle by which the light to the body is received and
disbursed. To this end, the light then being separate is produced from
the oil which in turn is transmitted to the eye for distribution to the
whole body. In Exodus 25:33 we read regarding the candelabra the
following:

Exodus 25:33: Three bowls made like unto almonds, with a knop and a
flower in one branch; and three bowls made like almonds in the other
branch, with a knop and a flower: so in the six branches that come out
of the candlestick.

What we see in the above Passage is that the 'bowls' which held the
oil for the light were attached to the branches of the candelabra and
shaped like 'ALMONDS'. The interesting aspect of this almond shape and
structure of the oil holding bowls is that an almond has the symbolic
shape of a human 'EYE'. In summary, while figuratively the light is the
Word Christ and the Oil in each of the suggested seven Eyes (bowls) is
indeed the Holy Spirit they are in and of themselves nonetheless
respectively different. It is the Word Christ that has the 7 Eyes and
the 7 Horns in Rev. 5:6 that are perhaps NOT the 7 Holy Spirits of God
but rather the 7 Eyes (angels/messengers/stars) spirits of God (Rev.
1:20) – one each filled with the oil of the Holy Spirit and attached to
each of the 7 branches of the candelabra for the dispersion of light to
the whole body.

Rev. 5:6: And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of
the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had
been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven
Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Response
#2:

Well, the seven eyes are said to be "the Seven Spirits", and the
Seven Spirits are described in Revelation 1:4-5 as the Holy Spirit,
occurring as they do in-between the Father and the Son (please see the
link:
in CT 2B, "The Seven Lamps of Fire"). Although it is true in
scripture that angels are sometimes described as spirits, these seven
angels are said to be stars, but not spirits, whereas in the context the
term seven-spirits is a synonym used for the Holy Spirit, demonstrating
His perfection. The seven eyes on the stone I take to be the Spirit's
anointed of the Messiah (the Rock), as in Is.11 (where the Spirit is
likewise described in seven-fold fashion):

(2) And the Spirit of the Lord will rest upon Him (i.e., the
Messiah), the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of
counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the
Lord.
Isaiah 11:2

In Revelation 5:6, the seven-spirits are said to be 1) "of God" (an
odd representation for angels who of course belong to Him, but an
important identifier for this otherwise potentially confusing
designation for the Spirit), and 2) to be "sent out into the entire
earth"; only God can be omnipresent; seven angels, no matter how
energetic, would be hard pressed to keep track of all that is going on
in the world at all times, even with large a group of subordinates.

Finally, and perhaps decisively, Revelation 3:1 states: "These are
the words of Him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven
stars". This verse distinguished carefully between the two, so that ipso
facto they cannot be the same.

In the Name of the One who oversees our every need in the perfect
Holy Spirit, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

Question #3:

Shalom Bob,

You must have known that simple little me would ask – are the seven
spirits of God and the seven stars synonyms, joined by the conjunction
'and', i.e. Matt. 3:11?

Matthew 3:11: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he
that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.

Response
#3:

No problem. On the contrary, the "and" tells us in English as well as
in Greek that they are separate. Were they in apposition (as in "Dave,
my brother") they would be the same thing; but with "and" they cannot be
(as in "Dave and my brother"). This is also the case in your example
where being baptized with the Spirit is wonderful, but being baptized
with fire means being thrown into the lake of fire (i.e., the two
contrasting eternal possibilities are contemplated therein).

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question
#4:

Shalom Bob,

I have a small concern with the 7 Lamps of Zechariah's candelabra
symbolizing the perfect seven-fold (fullness) of the Holy Spirit as you
suggest in your internet article under the section of the 'Two
Witnesses'. You say,

".
. .In all these cases, we have to do with the perfect
seven-fold witness of the Holy Spirit, shedding forth God's
light to illuminate the darkness of this world, making use of
human agencies, but always in behalf of Him who is the true
Light, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ("Not by might nor by
power, but by My Spirit": Zech.4:6). . ."

In Zechariah's illustration the OIL, which I take to symbolize the
Holy Spirit, is piped through 2 interconnected pipes and flows outward
(poured out) from the two Olive Trees (Moses and Elijah – which you
suggest above as the Holy Spirit making use of human agencies) into the
interconnected golden bowl (reservoir – NOT Lamp) on top of the menorah/
candelabra, which in turn is interconnected by 7 other pipes leading to
the 7 Lamps on each of the 7 Branches of the candelabra. You say,

".
. .This is the point behind the symbolism in Zechariah 4:12
where the two olive trees pour out their oil into the
lampstand's golden bowl. . ."

But consider:

Zech. 4:2-3: And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have
looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top
of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps,
which are upon the top thereof: [3] And two olive trees by it, one upon
the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.

However, IF the aforementioned 7 Lamps are symbolic of the fullness
of the Holy Spirit as suggested here, then the Holy Spirit itself is
being 'empowered' by the Two Witnesses, rather than the Two Witnesses
being 'empowered' by the Holy Spirit. You say,

".
. .Empowering this tribulational witness of light are the "two
anoint-ing ones", the two witnesses, Moses and Elijah. . ."

This scenario would then suggest that the Holy Spirit is not flowing
outward from Himself but rather back into Himself – the golden bowl and
the interconnected 7 Lamps. A literal example would be high-voltage
electricity flowing back into its source which in and of itself creates
an explosive 'resistance'. Although, IF the aforementioned 7 Lamps are
human agencies (angels/messengers/stars) analogous to those in Rev. 1:20
attached to 7 (branches) Churches/congregations/assemblies then the OIL
(Holy Spirit) that flows from the two Olive Trees (Moses and Elijah)
would then flow into a non-resistive common reservoir (the bowl) from
which each of the 7 Lamps interconnected by pipes would extract/receive
their OIL for the generation of their Light (the testimony of Jesus to a
dark Tribulation world).

Response
#4:

With all due respect, I think you may be reading a little too much
into the mechanics here. That certainly puts you in good company (as a
quick consultation of major commentaries on this passage will easily
show). Indeed, I still remember a very elaborate sermon given by one of
my seminary professors in chapel many years ago (complete with handout)
where he attempted to make a very big deal out the Hebrew and its "real"
meaning here. I was thrilled that at least one person was intent on
teaching the Bible from the pulpit, but was left a little cold by the
particular exposition which was fairly convoluted (and essentially
wrong, as I have since come to find out).

The symbolism and the underlying meaning of Zechariah 4 is indeed
strikingly unexpected. It is therefore prone to confusion, especially
since one first has to get by the (admittedly) interesting Hebrew
Zechariah uses to describe the situation he saw. The NIV version has it
right, although only by leaving the situation in verse 12 somewhat
ambiguous. Here is the picture: the two olive trees stand higher than
the menorah (as we would expect). They each have a branch which
stretches out towards a receiving conduit; into this conduit they pour
their golden oil; the oil flows down into the bowl which sits atop the
menorah, and thence it flows down into the seven lamps providing a
witness of light. There are clear differences here from the menorah of
the temple which had no such bowl sitting on top, no such twin conduits
to receive oil from an immediate source, and was of course never
positioned out in the open next to olive trees.

You make a good point that it is the Spirit who provides the power
and the energy to accomplish everything we do, and this point was
emphasized very clearly by the Lord in the context here in verse six:
"Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit", perhaps just so that
there might not be any confusion on that point because of the details of
the symbol. What we have here is a unique, particular symbol that
nonetheless fits perfectly into the overall symbolism of the temple, the
Tribulation, and the Holy Spirit. The menorah in the temple actually
represents Christ who is the Light of the world (and we do not
find this menorah anywhere in Revelation for that reason), but Christ
was of course uniquely anointed by the Spirit who empowered Jesus'
witness even though He is the Son of God (cf. Jn.3:34). The oil or
anointing refers to the Spirit's empowering and the light to the witness
the Spirit proclaims to the world concerning Jesus Christ. During the
Tribulation, the witness about Christ (i.e., the light coming off of the
lampstand) is uniquely propagated by the two witnesses and the ministry
of the 144,000 they organize and direct (which explains the flow into
the lamp; please see the link:
in CT 3A "The Two Witnesses"). They would
not have oil to give to this ministry in the first place, of course,
were it not for the Spirit. The oil they send forth (really, mediate)
flows into the unique tribulational witness of their ministry and the
144,000's ministry which they direct (no doubt represented by the
conduits), and is then shed abroad through the illuminated lampstand –
the gospel message of Christ illuminating the world (whom/which the
lampstand represents). This is easily confirmed when one considers that
in this symbol the light would stop without the trees; when the two
witnesses are removed, their ministry and that of the 144,000 will come
to an end, the Great Tribulation will begin (the 144,000 to be martyred
immediately thereafter as the first wave of the Great Persecution), and
this historically unique witness of light during the Tribulation's first
half will cease.

I find all this entirely consistent with the other ministries of the
Spirit and His modus operandi throughout scripture of working behind the
scenes.

In Him who is the Light of the world, our dear Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

Question #5:

Shalom Bob,

Here are some examples of a plethora of synonyms with the same
meanings that are joined by the conjunction 'AND':

These things saith he that hath the student and pupil.

These things saith he that hath the boy and lad.

He is Dave and my brother.

In Scripture we find a Passage with two 'figurative' synonyms of the
same exact meaning joined by the conjunction AND.

Rev. 5:6: And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of
the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had
been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven
Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Thus, symbolically and figuratively: seven horns = seven eyes which
both in turn mean the 'seven spirits of God'. Therefore, perhaps as I
earlier suggested with respect to Rev. 3:1: seven spirits of God = seven
stars and are synonyms which mean. . .?

Response
#5:

Well you have a point that there are exceptions to everything.
However, it is not for nothing that we have the saying "the exception
proves the rule". In the first two examples you provide, please note
that 1) we have rather archaic English here (not modern spoken English),
so the chances that we are really understanding what is being said here
is a bit more remote; and in any case, Greek usage resembles modern
English in respect of the point we are considering so that this is an
apples and oranges comparison; 2) note that in both of the first two
cases the definite article is used to signal the equivalence; that is to
say, "has the student and pupil" = "has the
student-who-is-also-the-pupil" or "has the-student-and-pupil"; we
understand (or did when this sort of language was in vogue) the
essential hyphenation because the first element has the definite article
but the second does not. Therefore "has a student and a pupil" would be
two not one, and "has the student and the pupil" would be two not one,
and it is to these last two pairs that our examples in Revelation
comport; 3) in both of these two examples, it is possible to pass on the
meaning of the two phrases being synonymous only because the two
elements really are synonyms outside of the context; that is, a student
IS a pupil, and a boy IS a lad (and vice versa in both cases); however,
a horn is not an eye, and a star is not a spirit; therefore, were I to
wish to communicate equivalence to someone in the case of such naturally
disparate sets, it would take much more than connecting them by "and"
which, on the contrary, communicates precisely the opposite in standard
usage; apart from these examples which are not really applicable as just
explained, "and" signs that the two are separate and not
the same (q.e.d.). As to "he is Dave and my brother", this is a
completely different situation where we are using a copula
(i.e., the verb "to be" which has different rules such as the predicate
nominative). Copulae by definition define the subject by the predicate
so that there is always some sort of equivalence in such cases (e.g.,
"Frank is an astronaut" is a very different sentence from "I see Frank and an astronaut"). Moreover, even in such a situation the
signal that we have an equivalence and not two things is the fact that
subject and verb are singular; however, that is not necessarily the
case; consider: "they are Dave and my brother", is identical from the
standpoint of the syntax at issue, but this time the plurals clearly
indicate that the two are not the same, but different. According to this
logic, the passages would have to read something like "they are seven
horns and also seven eyes" or "the seven horns which are also seven
eyes" (same with stars/spirits) – but that is not what we have of
course. Finally in regard to example #3, Dave may not be a natural
synonym of brother, but the two words both refer to singular males and
so readily admit to equivalence; whereas horns have very little in
common with eyes in a semantic sense (or stars with spirits). If a
person wanted to express in Greek (or I would guess in any language)
that a horn was the same thing as an eye, or a star the same as a
spirit, that would have to be spelled out very particularly in order to
avoid ambiguity. Connecting the two with "and", according to all normal
canons of language (since the two things are naturally disparate) rules
out their being synonyms.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question
#6:

Shalom Bob,

Thank you for your kind response. With regard to the 7 Horns and the
7 Eyes being seemingly non-synonymous I agree with you. However, it is
God who is figuratively defining in this particular case what these to
words/terms mean – the seven spirits of God. Meanwhile, here is another
Scripture where the definite article 'the' is used with each of the
synonyms, once again, figuratively defined words – 1) the two olive
trees 2) the two candlesticks.

Rev. 11:4: These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks
standing before the God of the earth.

Nonetheless, they both (the two olive trees and the two candlesticks)
are defined by God's Word as The Two Witnesses. In summary, with respect
to these aforementioned words, Strong's nor Webster's is NOT the
applicable dictionary/lexicon at work here but rather God's Word.

Response
#6:

Since we are getting deep in the weeds here, let me just make sure
that I am understanding your argument aright. It is, if I am not
mistaken, that the seven horns represent the Spirit as well as the seven
eyes, and that the two groups are therefore to be considered synonyms in
Revelation 5:6. If so, 1) I feel there is sufficient difference in the
interpretative distinction between horns on the one hand and eyes and
spirits on the other to weigh against that view, whereas eyes and
spirits as we have seen are clearly similar in their symbolic function;
2) while parallels may perhaps be adduced, it seems to me beyond
question that such a synonymous equivalence would be at the very least
unusual (even if possible) and thus would thus call for some semantic
cue in the context if we were meant to understand such a thing (and of
this we find no trace); 3) Revelation 11:4 is an example of an unusual
equivalence, but one which is cued, for we know from
Zechariah and elsewhere in scripture that the two witnesses are
represented by olive trees and are also closely connected with the
light-giving ministry of the Spirit; in light of Zechariah chapter four,
while lampstands and olive trees are not identical, they are in fact
very close to being synonymous for our interpretative purposes since
both are known to us to be involved in the revelatory function of
spreading the light of the gospel (oil-suppliers and oil-burners) and
are intimately connected in that passage (whereas I know of no place in
scripture where horns and eyes are seen to be essentially synonymous);
and finally 4) I would place Revelation 11:4 in the same category as the
last example of your previous e-mail: this is a question not
of a transitive verb (as we have in Rev.5:6), but rather of a
copula whose lead-in by definition requires the entire predicate
to refer to the subject; that is to say, I can have five apples and five
oranges and it will be understood that these are two different groups,
but when I say "these are five apples and five oranges", the meaning is
fundamentally changed; now I have either a ten item group or (as in the
case of Rev.11:4), or I am describing the apples as also somehow being
the same as oranges (equating the two) – context will have to decide
which is which when a copula is involved, but in the case of "have" or
any other transitive verb, I have yet to see a parallel
which even admits the possibility of equivalence; these constructions
are not interchangeable, even in the Bible, and it is important to point
out that the Bible is written in languages meant to be understood as
such.

My apologies in advance if I have misconstrued your argument in any
respect.

Keep on fighting the good fight of faith in Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

Question #7:

Shalom Bob,

If an 'apple' is equal to a fruit AND an 'orange' is also equal to a
fruit – then is an apple in any way equal to an orange in this scenario?
At first glance we must conclude that NO an apple is NOT equal to an
orange however; they are equal in the sense that they are BOTH fruits.
Therefore, in the sense that they are both fruits makes them synonymous
'as fruits'. To this end, if with respect to Rev. 5:6 an 'eye' is equal
to a spirit of God AND a 'horn' is equal to a spirit of God – then is an
eye in any way synonymously equal to a horn in this scenario 'as spirits
of God'?

After carefully studying your summation regarding Rev. 5:6, I am
compelled to AGREE with you with respect to the following:

".
. .in the case of "have" or any other transitive verb, I have
yet to see a parallel which even admits the possibility of
equivalence; these constructions are not interchangeable, even
in the Bible. . ."

It appears that regarding Rev. 5:6 what we have are two symbols/types
of the seven spirits of God that are each in and of themselves equal to
the seven spirits of God, but are NOT equal to each other – the seven
horns are not equal to the seven eyes. Meanwhile, from other Passages we
find that the seven eyes are equal to the seven lamps (Zech. 4:2,10)
which are also both equal to the seven spirits of God (Rev. 1:4 , 4:5
and 5:6). That being said, it goes without question that Biblically the
seven lamps and the seven eyes are both symbols of 'light' bearing
objects and is most likely the case here. Although, I think we should
differentiate between the light bearing objects and the actual light
itself (Christ/Word). Moreover, this leaves us then with the symbol of
the seven horns which must be explained because the seven horns are by
no means symbols of light. In Scripture the 'horn' is used in various
symbolic applications for power, dominion, glory, fierceness, oil flask,
as well as for persons of power (kings, rulers, etc.). Therefore, it is
from the seven horns of Rev. 5:6 that I am suggesting that these seven
horn symbols represent the seven persons of power (including the oil
flasks) in Rev. 1:20 which are none other than the seven angels/stars
(lights) of the seven Churches. It can therefore be reasonably argued
that the seven angles (spirits) of the seven Churches are indeed
'lights' (eyes and lamps) and that they are also flames of power and
fire (horns).

Hebrews 1:7: And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels
spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

2 Cor. 11:14: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an
angel of light.

Thus, I suggest that the seven spirits of God are the seven
angels/spirits (human) of the seven Churches.

Response
#7:

First, rams have eyes and horns, and these are clearly not the same
category of thing, nor are they mutually exclusive. On the topic of
horns, here is what I have written (in CT 2B) on the Lamb's seven eyes
and seven horns:

Moreover, the seven horns and seven eyes represented on the
Lamb are potent symbols of His coming reign, with the horns
signifying the completeness of the power that is now His for
rulership (cf. Deut.33:17; Ps.18:2; 112:9; Zech.1:18), and with
the seven eyes signifying the completeness of His empowerment by
the Holy Spirit for rulership (cf. Is.11:1-3; 42:1-4;
Zech.4:1-10; Jn.3:34).

Generally speaking, horns in scripture refer to power, and throughout
Revelation we see "horns" describing the individual power-blocks which
are part of the beast's revived Rome (with the symbolism coming from
Daniel – the beast himself is the "little horn").

Eyes, however, as I believe I have mentioned before, have a different
symbolism altogether. They speak to issue of perception (natural enough
for us as English speakers to understand), but also to
representation (i.e., the eye reflects light to
the Hebrew way of thinking as well as perceiving it; for that reason the
Hebrew word for eye, 'ayin [עין], sometimes means "appearance"; cf.
Ezek.1:4-27). The Spirit's ministry is thus clearly connected both to
the eyes (not only offering perfect information about everything going
on but also perfectly communicating the gospel) and also to the horns,
with the number seven indicating the perfection of deity both in the
provision of power by the Spirit and in the One possessing the eyes and
the horns, our Lord Jesus Christ.

So I would agree with the last bit here as long as it is understood
that Spirit rather than spirit(s) is what these images are signaling.

I do not, however, see a correlation between the seven angels and the
seven spirits. I take the angels as angels, but the seven spirits as a
symbol for the One Spirit (cf. Is.11:2). This can be seen from
Revelation 1:4-5 where between the Father and the Son we
have the "seven spirits"; since they clearly refer to the Holy Spirit in
that initial use, it seems equally clear that we should continue the
application of the phrase in an identical way when it occurs later.
Notice that these "seven" are always together in one place and are in
truth indivisible in spite of their number. The seven angels on the
other hand are split between the seven churches, one angel per church.
That is true even if one would wish to restrict the meaning of the seven
churches only to the literal seven churches of John's day (in fact the
seven churches represent the seven eras of the Church following the time
of the apostles down to the present day; see the link:
CT 2A "The Seven
Churches"). However one reads the passage, unlike the indivisible seven
spirits, the seven angels do form a college, and they are geographically
(and, I would argue, temporally) disparate in their location and
operation. Further, the Son of God is served by angels, but not
empowered by them. I don't see how the horns (or eyes or spirits) could
be described as intimately attached to Him if they were angels.

Finally, the new passages introduced here to support equivalence are
really laboring under the same problem of the copula. There is a
category of verbs in Greek and in English which while transitive
transform A into B. That is to say, A is either described in terms of B
or turned into B. In either case A = B, just as in a simple copula. In
the sentence, "I see the man", I and the man cannot be the same since
"I" am the subject and "the man" is the object. But in sentence "I call
the man my friend", "man" and "friend" are the accusative and predicate
accusative respectively, that is, they are really one and the same. This
also holds true for transformative verbs: "I make the man my disciple"
is describing the transformation of A into B, but A still = B. In "Who
maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire", the verb
"make" is doing the same thing: A = B; A = B.

I hope I've understood your argument correctly; do feel free to write
back if I have not.

In Jesus, the perfect and all-powerful Lamb of God.

Bob L.

Question
#8:

Shalom Bob,

If I may be permitted I would like to narrowly address the vision of
Zechariah chpt. 4, and its suggested prophetic meaning. Revelation 11:3
reveals that the 'two witnesses' are an equal and direct symbolic
reference to the 'two olive trees' of Zechariah's chpt. 4 visionary
menorah. Meanwhile, we know then that these two witnesses do not perform
their final earthly ministry until during the Tribulation period, and
these two men (Moses/Elijah) are currently standing before the throne of
God in Heaven along with the Seven Spirits of God (Rev. 4:5, 5:6). Going
forward, during their future 42 month earthly ministry in Jerusalem they
will serve as a 'medium' through which the Holy Spirit will be poured
into a 'common' reservoir (the bowl), from which seven connecting
conduits will transfer the symbolic Oil of the Holy Spirit to fuel and
feed the attached seven lamps/eyes/lights of Zechariah's unique
envisioned menorah (symbol of Christ). It is with respect to the seven
lamps (which are equal to the seven eyes) in Zechariah's menorah that we
should make an interpretative distinction between these seven lamps/eyes
and the seven lamps/eyes which are the seven Spirits of God standing
before the throne of God (Rev. 1:4, 4:5). I suggest that Zechariah's
college seven lamps/eyes are mortal angels/lights (stars) which will
have need of a continuous inflow of the Oil (Holy Spirit) from the two
olive trees during their earthly ministry, while the other seven
lamps/eyes are created angels/lights which have no need of a continuous
inflow of the Holy Spirit to perform their ongoing ministries as
informative eyes dispatched from Heaven into all the earth (i.e.
Zechariah 1:10, 4:10, 6:5, 7). Therefore, in totality what we actually
have are seven mortal earthly lamps and seven created Heavenly lamps
(equivalent but not equal). Created angels are referred to in many
Biblical Passages as the 'angels of God' in both the Old and the New
Testaments (Gen. 28:12, 32:1, Matt. 22:30, Lk. 12:8, etc.) as are these
Seven Spirits of God. And with respect to angels being 'spirits' and
'burning lamps' this is also supported in both Ps. 104:4 and Heb. 1:7.

Psalm 104:4: Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming
fire:

Hebrews 1:7: And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels
spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

It is therefore as you have previously suggested with respect to Rev.
3:1 – the Seven Spirits of God are not the same as the Seven Stars. In
addition, with respect to the Seven Spirits of God we must then ask are
the Seven Spirits of God the same as 'the' (direct object) seven
spirits/angels of Rev. 8:2, knowing perfectly well that God created many
spirits/angels?

Rev. 8:2: And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to
them were given seven trumpets.

In closing, you have previously suggested that the seven lamps of
Zechariah's unique menorah (which represents Christ) work as a
'college', which I suggest is in affect how the natural seven
lamps/stars and Churches function. As such, the seven lamps/eyes/stars
of Zechariah's menorah 'belong' to Christ and are in His right hand
(Rev. 1:20). However, while the overall complete menorah does indeed
represent Christ the seven lamps have an individual meaning – mortal
lamps/eyes/stars/angels and are not created beings (angels) as are the
seven spirits of God. Thus, if we conclude the abstract of the Seven
Spirits of God portrayed to be the 'fullness' of the Holy Spirit acting
as the universal agent for light distribution with respect to
Zechariah's menorah symbol Christ, we lose the inherent meaning of what
the individual seven Oil receiving lamps themselves represent.

Response
#8:

I'm not sure I understand. Here is the rub. You say,

It is with respect to the seven lamps (which are equal to the
seven eyes) in Zechariah's menorah that we should make an
interpretative distinction between these seven lamps/eyes and
the seven lamps/eyes which are the seven Spirits of God standing
before the throne of God (Rev. 1:4, 4:5). I suggest that
Zechariah's college seven lamps/eyes are mortal angels/lights
(stars) which will have need of a continuous inflow of the Oil
(Holy Spirit) from the two olive trees during their earthly
ministry, while the other seven lamps/eyes are created
angels/lights which have no need of a continuous inflow of the
Holy Spirit to perform their ongoing ministries as informative
eyes dispatched from Heaven into all the earth (i.e. Zechariah
1:10, 4:10, 6:5, 7).

My two questions:

1) What is it that moves us away from the divinely provided
interpretation in Revelation chapter one to the effect that the seven
spirits = the Holy Spirit?

2) What is it that moves us towards the speculation that the these
lamps are angels?

I don't see the Spirit empowering angels (cf. Heb.2:16, "For surely
it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants."), and I certainly
don't see the two witnesses empowering angels. I also don't see any
indication that the two witness ministry is connected to angels, and
certainly not to a college of seven. Their ministry is carried out by
the 144,000.

The examples in scripture of the seven angel college (in my
interpretation, the archangels; see the link) always seems to be
concerned with something like judgment; never something like evangelism.
The seven angels overseeing the seven churches constitutes an exception
since it is not a contemporaneous ministry; these churches in their main
interpretation do not exist at the same time. Also, there is largely no
doubt a protective capacity to their ministry to the seven churches. So
while I do think these seven are also the archangels, they will no
longer be functioning in their role as messengers to (or protectors of)
the seven churches by the time the Tribulation begins.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #9:

Shalom Bob,

With respect to your concern regarding the 'Seven Spirits' of Rev.
1:4 as being equal to the Holy Spirit there is no evidence in this
chapter to support your conclusion with unchallengeable certainty. It
simply states that they are 'Seven Spirits' which are before the Throne
of God and in no way describes with unquestionable clarity these Seven
Spirits. Moreover, as suggested earlier Rev. 8:2 also reveals 'Seven
Angels/Spirits' (Psalm 104:4 & Heb. 1:7 . . .who maketh his angels spirits.
. .)
which likewise stood before God. Therefore, identity with respect to
these Seven Spirits is somewhat ambiguous regarding whether they are The
Holy Spirit or Seven Created Angels. Nonetheless, the point I was
suggesting is that the Seven Spirits of God (eyes/lamps, etc.) mentioned
in Rev. 1:4, 3:1, 5:6, & 4:5 are 'Created Angels/messengers' that need
NO anointing of the Holy Spirit with reference to their ministries, whom
are dispatched from Heaven. However, the Seven Spirits/lamps/eyes/stars
of Zechariah's chpt. 4 menorah are suggested 'Human Angels/messengers'
and at the time of their earthly ministries during the Tribulation they
DO indeed need the anointing of the Holy Spirit that will be poured out
through the medium of the Two Witnesses. As such, this then goes to the
very nucleus of Church 'dispensationalism' and my original concern,
because in Zechariah's menorah ALL Seven of the Lamps are present and
acting as a college with the anointing of the Holy Spirit just as they
were in the description of the college Seven Churches and their
associated Seven Angels/Stars as initially described in Rev. chpts. 1-3.
To reiterate, the Holy Spirit does NOT empower 'Created Angels' but He
does empower 'Human Angels/Stars'. Moreover, the Two Witnesses do NOT
empower 'Created Angels' either, but they do empty their allotments of
the Holy Spirit as mediums into a 'common' bowl through which seven
directly attached golden conduits empower the 'Seven Human
Angels/Lamps/Stars' of the menorah during the Tribulation. Thus, this is
why I suggest that we should not merely assume a broad abstract
description of Zechariah's 7 Lamps as the fullness of the Holy Spirit,
because in doing so the 7 lamps just simply dissolve into the overall
constructive symbol of the menorah, which is of course Christ, losing
their 'individual' intended identities. In summary, if the Seven Spirits
of God, which would include the 7 Spirits of Zechariah's menorah, are as
you suggest in your supposition as the 'fullness of The One Holy Spirit'
then, Church Dispensationalism is feasible here however, if the Seven
Spirits of God are as I suggest Seven Created Angels standing before the
Throne of God being periodically dispatched, and not including the 7
Human Spirits/Angels of Zechariah's menorah which are equivalents but
not equals, then Zechariah's menorah reveals that the original Seven
CLASSIFICATIONS/TYPES (Rev. chpts. 1-3) of the Church have been and will
be present all through the existence of the Church Age.

Response
#9:

I certainly do see the seven spirits as described in Rev.1:4 as the
Holy Spirit and in fact see no other reasonable application, since they
are made equal to the Father and to the Son (and that can only mean the
Spirit in my view).

The seven churches are the seven church eras of which we are the
last:
Laodicea (see the link).

As to the idea that seven humans are being referred to by the seven
lights on the golden lampstand, I must confess skepticism. On the one
hand, I know of no other scriptures that give seven human beings such a
unique evangelistic role during the Tribulation (whereas we do see the
two witnesses and their 72,000 pairs of evangelists elsewhere; see the
link: "The ministry of the 144,000"); on the other hand, the menorah is a
unified piece: whatever it refers to has to be "one" in its most
essential symbolism, and to a degree that no group of human beings (or
even angels) could ever be.

So while I think the symbolism in Zechariah is descriptive, I do not
see it as being limiting in the sense of ruling out other applications.
The fact that the Spirit's empowering of the two witnesses who uniquely
in turn empower the evangelistic effort of the Tribulation's first half
is taught by this symbol does not mean that there are not other
individuals or groups involved in any such efforts at all or that the
Spirit is not active in any other way at all. I fully expect believers
to continue to be indwelt by the Spirit (pace hyper-dispensationlism),
and for the Spirit to be fully involved in the ministry of salvation,
for example, even when the two and the 144K are not directly involved
(as indeed He has always been and will always be).

Apologies in advance if I have misconstrued anything here.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #10:

Shalom Bob,

Please consider this suggestion regarding Zechariah's vision of his
unique menorah. In symbolism I suggest that at the time of the Two
Witnesses' (Moses/Elijah) ministry during the Tribulation, Zechariah's
unique menorah reveals that the Holy Spirit will be channeled through
the two aforementioned men which will then directionally flow into an
interconnected 'common bowl'. It should be noted however that at this
particular time (during the Tribulation) the Holy Spirit does not flow
directly into the individual Seven Lamps (lights/luminaries) but
indirectly as stated into a common reservoir. It is therefore from this
common reservoir of the Holy Spirit that the Seven Lamps receive their
Oil. To this end, we must then ask, what is the symbolism of the Holy
Spirit filled common bowl representative off at this given time – the
time of the ministry of the Two Witnesses? One possible solution is the
geographic location of the common bowl (CUP) into which the Holy Spirit
is being poured during the Tribulation is where the Two Witnesses are
restricted for the duration of their specified ministries, which is none
other than The Great City of apostate (at that time) Jerusalem.

Rev. 11:8: And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great
city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord
was crucified.

In Zechariah 12:2 Jerusalem is called a 'CUP' of Trembling.

Zech. 12:2: Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all
the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against
Judah and against Jerusalem.

Therefore, during the Tribulation the Holy Spirit will not flow
directly into the Seven Lamps (luminaries) but will be channeled through
the medium Two Witnesses, then into the common bowl/cup (Jerusalem), and
from there it will be channeled into the Seven college interconnected
Lamps. As such, during the Tribulation Jerusalem will become the 'sole'
epicenter (the distribution center) for the confined channeling (not the
usual generalized outpouring) of the Holy Spirit to the Seven Lamps who
declare the witness of the Saving Blood of Jesus.

Response
#10:

Revelation 1:4-5 reads:

John, to the seven churches which are in Asia [Minor]: Grace
to you and peace from (1) the One who is and was and is coming
(i.e., the Father), and from (2) the seven spirits (i.e., the
Holy Spirit) which are before His throne, and from (3) Jesus
Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and
the Ruler of the kings of the earth.

Please note: John expresses "joy and peace" which emanate from
three sources, all three of which begin with the identical
preposition ek/from:

(1) Clearly the Father

(2) ???

(3) Clearly the Son

Since #2 is in between Father and Son and equally the source of the
grace and peace (which only God can provide) and is
otherwise described in identical terms, it would seem that only
a divine entity can fill the blank. There is only one other member of
the Trinity, and that is the Holy Spirit. I cannot see how a college of
angels could possibly be made equal to Father and Son (which
understanding them here between the two would certainly communicate),
nor how they could supply grace and peace. We do have to explain why the
seven spirits are not called the Holy Spirit, but that is not a
difficult task (and has already been accomplished; cf. Is.11:2). The
Holy Spirit is by apparent choice and design the Member of the Trinity
who is felt but not seen (please see the link: in
BB 1, "The Holy
Spirit"). He is ever in the background rather than the foreground. He
is, moreover, given many names wherein one has to understand that it is
He (e.g.,
"the Restrainer", the "Comforter", etc.). Seven is the number
of perfection, so that placing His ministry in view rather
than His Person (i.e., the perfect evangelical ministry He empowers
during the Tribulation) is entirely in keeping with His role elsewhere
in scripture, not to mention the other biblical descriptions of Him.

We know that the Holy Spirit exists. But the phrase "the Holy Spirit"
never occurs in the Book of Revelation overtly; He is present in this
passage, but, again, in the very typical one might almost say
self-effacing way of ministering to the truth without coming out on
stage Himself.

Here is what I have written about this passage in CT 1:

The seven spirits

: The seven spirits which reside before
the very throne of the Father are a reference to God the Holy
Spirit as is evident both from later instances in the book of
Revelation and from elsewhere in scripture as well (Prov.9:1;
Is.11:2; Zech.3:9; 4:2; 4:10 with 4:6; Rev.3:1; 4:5; 5:6; the
NIV's alternative reading for this and the other Revelation
"seven spirits" passages of "the seven-fold Spirit of God"
suggests a similar interpretation). The Holy Spirit is, of
course, indivisible, and the number seven here most likely
connotes the idea of perfection and completion: that is, the
continued perfect ministry of the Spirit throughout all seven
periods of the Church age promoting spiritual growth and
restraining the evil one. That the Holy Spirit is not overtly so
named here is in keeping with His role in the Father's plan. The
very name "Spirit" or wind (in Greek and Hebrew both) indicates
something powerful but unseen, the hallmark of the Spirit's
ministry.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #11:

Shalom Bob,

Thank you for your kind patience and concern with my continuing
eschatological education. You suggest that with respect to Rev. 1:4-5
that the Holy Trinity is in view with John's expression of peace and
joy, and as such you state that phrase of Rev. 1:4, ". . .him which is, and
which was, and which is to come. . ." is clearly representative of God the
Father.

Rev. 1:4: John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto
you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come;
and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

However, we must read four additional verses forward Rev. 1:8, 11 to
get a clear understanding of just who is being addressed by this
particular phrase in question.

Rev. 1:8: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith
the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Rev. 1:11: Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,
What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches
which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and
unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto
Laodicea.

Meanwhile, in the preceding verse we read:

Rev. 1:7: Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him,
and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall
wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Response
#11:

The symbolism, representation, and naming of Father and Son are
always very close in scripture – because the Son represents the Father
and is the visible Presence of the Father (see the link: in
BB 4A "Old
Testament Appearances of Jesus Christ"). For that reason, for example,
though Jesus is the One visible in the Old Testament, He is represented
as "God" – which of course He is! However, it is the Son, not the
Father, who has ever been the One who has visibly appeared in human
history.

The Father is also the One being described in verse 11. That the
Father is in view with this appellation in verse four is clear as well,
since otherwise Jesus would be here twice and the whole passage would
make little sense. However, as a statement of the seal of the Trinity in
all three Persons upon the unveiling of the conclusion of history the
suggested interpretation makes perfect sense.